Asahi reporters uncovered 14 instances of wrongdoing, and approximately 30 whistleblowers who had worked at the decontamination sites contacted the Ministry after being ordered to improperly dispose of the debris. In one instance, reporters took a series of 27 photographs of a Kajima Corporation supervisor kicking radioactive leaves into a river. Kajima officials continue to insist that the incident didn’t happen, instead saying that he was trying to recover a rake that had slid down an embankment into the river. However, none of the pictures showed a rake, and the embankment near the river was covered with roots, branches, and other foliage, making it difficult or impossible for the rake to slide down the hill. In another instance, a report said that contractors did not use pressurized sprayers to clean roofs, when Asahi photographs clearly show that they were used, a violation of Environment Ministry decontamination policies.

In addition, problems have surfaced in Fukushima City, which is not one of the central government’s 11 officially designated “special decontamination areas”, but has received government funding for cleanup. Although the prefectural government told Environment Ministry officials that it would use zeolite-filled sandbags to filter radioactive materials out of water contaminated by the cleaning process, it failed to do so, instead allowing the water produced by pressurized sprayers to flow into gutters. Ministry guidelines say that houses are supposed to be decontaminated by wiping, not spraying, and when spraying is used, radioactive water should be collected. Officials blamed the failure on lack of temporary storage space for the contaminated sandbags. In Fukushima City, although 90,000 homes have been certified radioactive, only 4,000 have been decontaminated almost two years after the nuclear disaster first began to unfold.

Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare plans to update worker safety regulations for those who work at radioactive sites and with contaminated materials. Current standards only apply to decontamination workers assigned to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, and up until now, no regulations have applied to those who are decontaminating highly radioactive areas in Fukushima Prefecture or those who work at waste disposal sites where highly radioactive waste is collected and processed. Under the new regulations, scheduled to take effect in July, companies will be required to provide those workers with dosimeters, conduct external exposure examinations each time they work at a site, and provide internal exposure checkups every three months. (Source: NHK)

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) boris324
says:

Japan appears to becoming a nuclear junk yard. You can only store and bury so much radioactive material. What about all the other countries that have nuclear reactors including past, present and future. Their clean up procedures leave a lot to be desired. The future of earth is truly in jeopardy. I wish more people would read these articles to educate themselves on the dangers of nuclear reactors. Thank you Greenpeace.

Post a comment

To post a comment you need to be signed in.

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@Beppe - Plutonium is used mixed with uranium in some nuclear power stations. The mixed fuel is called MOX. Currently, only France and Russia produce MOX fuel, and the 3rd unit of Fukushima used MOX when it got into trouble. It is likely that the presence of MOX complicated the handling of the catastrophe.
You are right that far out the most plutonium coming from reprocessing is currently stockpiled and not used as MOX - partly because of the complexity of use, partly because the MOX production itself doesn't work properly (like for instance in Sellafield, UK, and Rokasho, Japan).
I would not use the word "recycling". Around 6% of the initial spent nuclear fuel is indeed brought in a state that it could be re-used. The rest is waste. That is not really recycling. We use the word reprocessing for it.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

Jan,
Japanese media uses the expression "nuclear fuel cycle" (核燃料サイクル), which suggests some recycling, hence I used "recycling&qu...

Jan,
Japanese media uses the expression "nuclear fuel cycle" (核燃料サイクル), which suggests some recycling, hence I used "recycling" -- in quotes.

The plutonium used in MOX is only a few percent, the rest is uranium. Monju-type reactors are touted as the pacific destination of the plutonium Japan keeps stockpiling; too bad that Monju never went online and probably never will. On top of this, Monju ends up generating more Pu than it consumes.

Finally, NHK has aired a documentary showing official minutes of a meeting of some government body whereby it was stated openly that Monju was a good excuse to stockpile plutonium -- hence my comment.